This is one of the reasons I prefer email and other long-form asynchronous communication methods over IMs and such.
Actions after which I expect some kind of response seem to be more costly than the direct time cost they incur (for me, at least).
This makes sense in the OS analogy. When you context-switch, you still have the previous context in cache. The question is: how long do you prioritize keeping the IM context in cache over bringing in the new context?
With batched communication, the answer is simple: drop the old context immediately and load the new context.
With IMs, you end up holding the old context in cache for a while in the hopes that you’ll context-switch back ‘soon’ and it’ll be useful. But of course this means you’re guessing as to how long it’ll be before you get a response… and if you don’t get a response meanwhile you’re running with less cache allocated to the new context.
This is one of the reasons I prefer email and other long-form asynchronous communication methods over IMs and such.
This makes sense in the OS analogy. When you context-switch, you still have the previous context in cache. The question is: how long do you prioritize keeping the IM context in cache over bringing in the new context?
With batched communication, the answer is simple: drop the old context immediately and load the new context.
With IMs, you end up holding the old context in cache for a while in the hopes that you’ll context-switch back ‘soon’ and it’ll be useful. But of course this means you’re guessing as to how long it’ll be before you get a response… and if you don’t get a response meanwhile you’re running with less cache allocated to the new context.